Hey guys. I don't usually venture into these parts but I was wondering how pro wrestling fans feel about a real progressive candidate. Dennis Kucinich is my candidate of choice and (IMO) the only real alternative to Bush.

Click Here (kucinich.us) for information on his platform. I'll summarize some of it here:

* Get out of NAFTA, FTAA and GATT* Get back into Kyoto* Get rid of the most recent Bush tax cuts* Bring the UN into Iraq* Increased "Public Works" programs for states* Increased "Corporate responsibility"* Decreased military spending* Same sex couples getting the same treatment as heteros (namely insurance and hospital visitation rights)* Instant run off voting and publically financed campaigns* Treatment over crimilization of drug addiction (plus medical marijuana)

There is much more information at his web site. So what do you guys think?

Well, uglier people have been elected President - wait, no they haven't.

On the real, Dennis Kucinich has no political base, no money, and no exitement. He has the most left-wing platform, if that's your criteria for who you like though.

Personally, out of that particular "old-school, industrial working class, New Deal Democrat" gang, I think Marcy Kaptur is a much better candidate for President. And you should dig into some of Kucinich's history on social issues before you cast your lot in with this guy.

(edited by MoeGates on 13.8.03 1947)"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."

Decreased military spending? Yikes. I'll assume you're against the war in Iraq, Fab, but what if we have to fight a war that you're not against? Or just a necessary one, in self defense? What if N. Korea sees us getting soft and lobs a nuke into California? What if any random Middle Eastern country starts feeling its oats? Even if we don't use it, I'd definitely like a strong military at this point in world history. And nuclear proliferation will only make the world a more dangerous place.

As far as Kucinich's politics, I say... huh. Initially, the buzz about this guy was that he was fairly moderate, has a good record on foreign relations, and is popular in Florida. Seemed like a pretty good VP candidate. I think he's buried his chances at that position now.

I take your point on the Debt, there, Moe. I'm definitely not happy with Bush's tax-cut-and-spend style. But imagine what Kucinich would do. If we can assume, as is the case with Bush, that politicians will spend more than they say they're going to, then what would Kucinich spend? He already proclaims himself in favor of "public works" programs (Big Dig anyone?) and (ugh) publically financed elections. So just imagine what else is up his sleeve. You know socialized medicine has to be on his list, and that is an expensive proposition.

What's DK's problem with NAFTA, etc.? Bush's protectionism is bad enough - I don't want it getting ratcheted up. Steel tarriffs will become food tarriffs will become even more bloated farm subsidies... no thanks.

Kyoto, well, no thanks again.

As far as gay couples having the same rights as heteros, though, hey - I can support that. I lament the lack of a laissez-faire social policy candidate who has a strong national security stance.

"Georgie Porgie, he might buy the whole league, but he doesn't have enough money to buy fear to put in my heart."Pedro Martinez

Originally posted by PalpatineWbr>As far as Kucinich's politics, I say... huh. Initially, the buzz about this guy was that he was fairly moderate, has a good record on foreign relations, and is popular in Florida. Seemed like a pretty good VP candidate. I think he's buried his chances at that position now.

On this point, your getting Ohio Congressman Kucinich confused with Florida Senator Graham. And I still consider Graham the most dangerous Democrat in the general election.

Ok, so Ted Williams is decapitated now? What will his son do next, sell him to the Japanese dog food company that bought former Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand?

I've been torn on Iraq. On one hand I'm glad Saddam is out of power for strictly human rights issues. On the other hand I don't think Bush and company have really made the case they were going for with the war and the continued involvement of Haliburton, DynCorp, etc certainly doesn't look good.

In general, I think this administration has treated foreign policy like a bar fight. We got sucker punched and that guy ran off, so we beat the shit out of another guy. I'm of the mind that we should act responsibly in the bar and not cause these things to happen. (Because honestly, 9/11 didn't happen "because they hate our freedom.") But if a fight happens then by all means fight back. You just can't start hitting people when they look at you funny.

I think it's entirely reasonable that we can make our homeland safer with a smaller budget (not because of a smaller budget mind you, but with one.) I recently heard our military budget is equal to the rest of the world's combined. Is that really necessary? I think that is only the case if we want to be the one absolute, unchallenged ultrapower in the world and we really don't need to be that.

Even more in general, I think we should be able to defend ourselves in heart beat but not by taking over countries that might be a threat down the line.

But I digress.

WRT global trade agreements: these things have hurt stateside and international workers. Jobs move to where they are cheapest, most often at the expense of the locals. It sounds good enough in theory but when it gets to the point of child labor and sweatshops - do we really want corporations to be able to do this, especially when most of them don't even pay taxes here? And move jobs away?

WRT national healthcare: I have many, many friends in the Emergency Medical Services profession. From paramedics to ER nurses. It is staggering how many public aid cases come through that could have been handled much earlier without the expense of emergency treatment and an ambulance. And not even in cases where people let a medical condition go until it was time for EMS - cases that could have gone to a GP but the ER is the only place a lot of people have. It's a bit of an overstatement when Kucinich says "we already have the cost of national healthcare without the benefits," but that's pretty close to the way things actually work out.

WRT Kyoto: Well, the weather doesn't seem normal to me. From what I've heard of the treaty it seemed too lax to me. Cutting emmission by a couple percentage points over five or ten years? I don't understand people's problems with that.

Originally posted by PalpatineWbr>As far as Kucinich's politics, I say... huh. Initially, the buzz about this guy was that he was fairly moderate, has a good record on foreign relations, and is popular in Florida. Seemed like a pretty good VP candidate. I think he's buried his chances at that position now.

On this point, your getting Ohio Congressman Kucinich confused with Florida Senator Graham. And I still consider Graham the most dangerous Democrat in the general election.

Damn... I am an idiot. Thanks, rsn. :)

"Georgie Porgie, he might buy the whole league, but he doesn't have enough money to buy fear to put in my heart."Pedro Martinez

"Third off, if you folks think the National Debt is huge NOW, just wait until he got done with us."

-lmfao-

That's rich.....Grimis, from now on, no more pretending that the GOP is more fiscally responsible than the donks, okay? Reagan, as well as Bush 41 and 43 have completely clusterfucked that impression of the party. Until Dubya learns that you can't keep on cutting taxes and raising spending unless you enjoy bankrupting countries, you guys have NO right to harp on the dems for their supposed fiscal irresponsibility. The GOP is just as hooked on spending (read; VOTE BUYING) as the democrats are.

"Kucinich would be better off just moving to China or France, where he'd have more of a base."

Of course. Because we all know that the populations of China and France are one big homogeneous monolith devoid of personal opinion, right? It's moronic blanket-statements like that that give us conservatives a bad name.

I didn't exaclty give my ringing endorsement to the spending programs going on right now. Just that Kucincih's proposed spending will blow this out of the water...

...which leads into my comments about China/France. The point is NOT that there is some sort of gelatinous orb that controls a monolithic opinion. This is not Solaris. The point being that the Chinese and French governments are heavily statist and are handcuffed by socialistic ideas of government regulation and intervention i.e. policies more in line with Kucinich then 95% of the American public.

Yikes...

"Each time I've met Huffington, I wondered if she was not somehow the long-lost daughter of Madame Nicolai Ceaucescu, or a genetic cross between Martha Stewart and Count Dracula. Had this Greek-born harpy lived in medieval times, she would have been sewn up in a bag with a rooster and two snakes and thrown into the nearest river."-- Eric Margolis, Toronto Star

Originally posted by GrimisI didn't exaclty give my ringing endorsement to the spending programs going on right now. Just that Kucincih's proposed spending will blow this out of the water...

...which leads into my comments about China/France. The point is NOT that there is some sort of gelatinous orb that controls a monolithic opinion. This is not Solaris. The point being that the Chinese and French governments are heavily statist and are handcuffed by socialistic ideas of government regulation and intervention i.e. policies more in line with Kucinich then 95% of the American public.